mtswIf conservative radicals who've stolen our courts were actually "originalists" they would take a very dim view of the government arresting people for no reason. "You cannot arrest someone without a good reason" is like the literal oldest thing in Common Law. But instead the doctrine is the nonsensical Qualified Immunity of "cops can do whatever they want to with no consequences." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-ohio-mans-bid-sue-police-arrest-facebook-parody-rcna70435
Like I'm not a lawyer but I don't even see what this has to do with the First Amendment one way or another. "The cops physically took my body and placed it in jail on a false and legally batshit basis because they were mad at me" like that seems like it's plenty?
Why is there a burden of proof on this guy to prove that his post was protected speech? Why should the burden of proof be on a citizen to prove the cops shouldn't be allowed to arrest him on trumped up charges? What are we even doing here
Clinical Rawlsian@mtsw I find it pretty incredible that so many conservatives –including the six conservative SCOTUS members –don't seem to understand that elites adopted ideas like habeus corpus to prevent the state and its armed agents from harming not just everyday citizens but elites themselves. Throughout history, many rich and powerful people have been exiled, imprisoned, maimed or killed by authoritarians who felt threatened or challenged by them.
@mtsw For example, I just watched a video on YouTube about how Richard III basically just disappeared his two nephews (one of whom was the child King of England) during the War of the Roses because they stood between him and the crown. And nobody said or did anything about it in large part because the power of the monarch was so absolute. https://youtube.com/shorts/thatCgB_5kY?feature=share
The Princes In The Tower
Nerd That Talks Good@MadMadMadMadRN
Can we skip to that part, then?
Can we skip to that part, then?
Jason Petersen (he)@mtsw we don’t believe in the fourth or eighth amendment and we haven’t in some time
americanjeff@mtsw From reading the article it seems clear to me that for the police using his post as a pretense for arresting him under that state law was a violation of the first amendment. The ruling is 100% bs because they should have known that and should not have gotten QI.